The Green Party agrees with the petitioner and seeks a stop to further GM food approval ahead of full safety studies, more comprehensive and enforced labelling, and a reassessment of existing GM food approvals.

It’s been 14 years since a Royal Commission chaired by a former Chief Justice concluded that there was no scientific basis to ban genetically modified organisms. Despite this, the Greens have fought against the science undeterred.

Green MP Kevin Hague could have competition for the party’s leadership as two more MPs have tentatively suggested they might enter the contest.

MPs Gareth Hughes and Kennedy Graham would not rule out bids for the male co-leadership position, which will be up for grabs when Russel Norman stands down in May after eight years.

Mr Hughes confirmed yesterday he was consulting with supporters about whether he should enter the race, but said he would not confirm his intentions until closer to the nomination deadline in mid-April.

He is ranked fifth on the party’s list and has gained some profile in lobbying for environmental causes.

Dr Graham, who is one of the party’s senior MPs and speaks for the party on foreign affairs, said he “had not discounted the idea” of entering the leadership race.

The Greens are calling on the New Zealand Super Fund to divest from fossil fuels, as it accuses its guardians of betting on a climate disaster.

The fund currently has $676 million in fossil fuel companies – about 2 per cent of the fund’s assets under management.

The role of the Super Fund is to maximise the return on investment to help fund NZ Superannuation. It is not to reflect Green Party ideology. If you want a Green fund, then you can invest in one of the dozens around. But one of the huge risks in the Government having a large investment fund is that politicians will want to use it for their own pet projects. First they start excluding stuff they don’t like, and then they announce say $5 billion will be invested in wind farm companies, and bang the NZ Super Fund becomes a plaything for politicians.

“Getting out of fossil fuels is not only the right thing to do, it makes financial sense too.”

I wonder how many would die if in fact every fossil fuel company in the world had its funding turned off, and was unable to attract capital. I suspect it might be more than Mao managed!

I do agree that renewable energy needs to be a much larger share of the world’s future energy supply. But fossil fuels in countries like China currently provide heating and electricity to hundreds of millions. If you declared a ban on any future fossil fuel extraction, then there would be massive shortages.

In a move that won’t surprise anyone in politics, Green MP Kevin Hague has put his hand up to be the party’s co-leader.

The West Coast-based list MP is first out of the blocks, and rookie MP James Shaw was expected to follow, but this morning Shaw said it was “highly unlikely” because it was too early in his parliamentary career.

Nominations for the role don’t open until next month, ahead of the party’s annual conference in May, but Hague, an MP since 2008, explained: “I am certain to stand, and I thought it could be useful for Green Party members to know that.”

Without discounting who else might stand, it is fair to say that Kevin Hague is a very good potential co-leader, and he could do significantly better than his predecessor, if elected.

The strengths that Hague would bring to the Greens are:

He is not a communist (or former communist)

He has significant political skills, playing a key role in campaigns such as the marriage equality campaign

He is trusted and respected with most MPs from both National and Labour

He will generally put progressing an issue, ahead of point scoring, for example working behind the scenes with National MPs on adoption law reform rather than grand-standing on the issue such as a Labour MP did

Has the ability to work with MPs from other parties, including National. Involved in many cross-party caucuses.

Has been influential in the Greens in reducing the power of the anti-science brigade, and has moved the Greens away from blanket opposition to fluoridation and vaccinations to more balanced positions

Has significant management experience, having been a CEO of a District Health Board

I think Kevin Hague would be an excellent choice by the Greens to replace Russel Norman as the male co-leader.

Hague said he had good relationship with both major parties – but said the Greens made the right decision in aligning with Labour.

“We are not a party that is going to throw away our core principles and our values or actually a very large number of our policies in order to make that political accommodation … it’s hard to see National providing the level of policy gains for the Green party.”

But Hague found common ground with National over national cycleways and pest control. “I’ve got a track record … of finding ways of working with them. I look forward to doing that more.”

The Greens would never choose National over Labour, but a Hague led Greens would be more likely to be able to have a constructive relationship with National, where they can work together in a few areas. This would be a good thing.

This weekend brings GMO-sceptics to Wellington. Presentations include “Pesticides: scilencing the ecosystem and silencing our children” and “Overweight, undernourished, sterile and dying of cancer. Our food is it sealing the fate of humanity?”

And look who is hosting them, at Parliament:

Crampton has details of the two speakers, such as how Gilles-Eric Seralini’s paper on GM food and mice was retracted.

89% of scientists think GM food is safe, a slightly higher percentage (88%) who think humans are mostly responsible for climate change. So it is fair to say there is a strong scientific consensus on this issue. Yet the Greens are hosting a conference or seminar of GM deniers and sceptics – at Parliament.

Now they have the right to peddle their pseudo-science. But let’s imagine if this wasn’t the Greens, but ACT. And ACT hosted a conference at Parliament of half a dozen climate change sceptics preaching against the scientific consensus. They would be denounced by a dozen lobby groups as being anti-science and abusing their position as a parliamentary party by allowing parliamentary facilities to be used in such a way. The Greens would be the ones most loudly decrying ACT.

So it is a useful reminder that the Greens devotion to scientific consensus is cherry picked to only apply when it backs their world view.

He says he is happy to help candidates for parties he disagrees with, with the exception of the Greens. He labels them as the most unsuccessful minor party in NZ – not in terms of votes, but achievements.

He points to the significant policy wins that NZ First, the Alliance, ACT and the Maori Party have managed, and contrasts that to the Greens who have almost nothing to show for 15 years in Parliament.

The future is not much brighter. They refuse to work with National, and if Labour can win in 2017, they will be dependent on NZ First who will again block the Greens from Government.

Share this:

One News has just tweeted that the 11 am press conference of the Greens is the resignation of Russel Norman.

UPDATE: Andrea Vance has said he is leaving in May. Staying on as an MP for now, but resigning as co-leader.

He has been male co-leader for eight years and apart from any personal reasons, I guess he realises that his chances of ever becoming a Minister are dim. Even if the left wins in 2017, Winston is likely to block them from becoming Ministers.

Kevin Hague is the obvious choice to replace him as male co-leader. Well respected by MPs in all parties. If the resignation was in 2016 or later, then James Shaw would be a good contender, but might be too early for him as a new MP. Having said that, Norman become male co-leader before he was an MP.

Norman cites wanting to spend more time with his family as a factor. being a (co) leader is very time consuming and hard on family life. He’s had eight years in the (co) top job, so the decision is quite understandable. By coincidence just last week I was talking to someone about whether Norman and Turei would contest the next election as co-leaders, and who might be their successors.

Predictions from prestigious Australian research institute CSIRO that petrol could cost up to AUS$8 – about NZ$10 – per litre within a decade means we need to rapidly change course to avoid serious economic disarray, Green Party Co-Leader Russel Norman says.

“Petrol at that price would make the Government’s entire motorway building project a white elephant – modern day Easter Island statues. Our new motorways would be monuments to short sightedness and profligate waste of resources.

“Governments even contemplating building motorways like the billion dollar-plus Transmission Gully project in Wellington or the $2 billion Waterview tunnel project in Auckland are seriously out of touch with reality,” Dr Norman says.

The economic disarray would have come if we had followed Dr Norman’s advice and did our transport planning on an assumption of $10/litre petrol.

If the Greens had intellectual consistency, they would now come out and say that Waterview was justified, as the cost of petrol is now under $2/litre and likely to stay there for years.

“We have no choice but to move to a far less oil-dependent economy, because rising prices will give us no choice.

The Green movement have a history of predicting massive shortages and associated price rises of natural resources, and being basically wrong every time.

The only two Timaru protesters to stick their heads in the sand against perceived climate change inaction missed each other and ended up protesting at different times and ends of Caroline Bay yesterday.

Green Party Aoraki branch convener Gerrie Ligtenberg and party member Kate Elsen got their wires crossed and protested alone.

Ligtenberg dug her protest hole at the skatepark end of the beach at noon, whereas Elsen had turned up earlier at the Marine Parade end.

“It was all a bit last minute,” Ligtenberg said.

Although a few beach visitors gave her some odd looks, she was not as silly as she looked, she said.

“I put a plastic bag in the hole so I didn’t get sand in my ears.”

I think the Greens should use this photo in their next campaign:

It seems to sum up the Greens’ stance on genetic engineering very nicely.

New documents released to the Green Party show that Prime Minister John Key used New Zealand’s intelligence services for the National Party’s political ends a few days out from the 2014 election, the Green Party said today.

Documents released to the Green Party under the Official Information Act show that Prime Minister John Key pressured the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) into releasing previously classified documents just days out from the election.

“The Prime Minister has arrogantly used the GCSB in order to assist the National Party’s elections chances,” Green Party Co-leader Dr Russel Norman said today.

The Green Party is calling for an independent umpire to regulate buy-back prices set by power companies, after a major supplier slashed its rate for new customers generating solar or wind power.

Users of renewable energy – such as solar or wind – use the electricity to power their home or business, and can sell back any excess electricity to their supplier to be used on the national grid.

Contact Energy announced on Friday it was cutting its buy-back rate for new customers by over half, dropping from 17c to 8c.

Green Party energy spokesman Gareth Hughes said the move showed electricity companies had all the power in setting terms, contract length and buy-back rate for exporting surplus energy.

“It is high time New Zealand established an independent umpire to set fair and non-subsidised rates for surplus energy with greater contract certainty,” he said.

Contact Energy, like most companies, will sell for as high a price as they can get and buy for as low a price as they can get.

In situations with monopolies, regulation can be the most sensible option.

But surely the preferred policy here should be to increase competition so that more companies are competing to buy surplus electricity. Having the Government set the price, will mean fewer companies wanting to buy surplus electricity, which will force consumers with their own generating capacity to lose choice.

It’s time that we grew up as a nation when it comes to diplomatic courtesy. It’s time the Greens revoked their “unofficial ban” on visiting political leaders addressing the New Zealand Parliament.

Some of the world’s most powerful leaders like Germany’s Angela Merkel and China’s Xi Jinping are headed our way later this month after they’ve been to the G20 Summit in Brisbane.

Having political leaders of such calibre addressing our Parliament while it is sitting is not going to subvert our democracy. But the Greens’ overblown and juvenile stance that only New Zealand politicians should be allowed to address a sitting session makes us look absurdly pretentious in comparison to our transtasman neighbour.

Indeed it does.

In a few weeks, three of the world’s most powerful people will be the latest foreign leaders to address the Australian Parliament in what will be memorable occasions for that country’s politicians.

At least one of those leaders — Chinese President Xi — will come to New Zealand for a similar State visit. But those long-standing objections by the Greens have (so far) robbed New Zealand of the opportunity to honour visiting leaders in a way that (at least in Australia) has seen them rise to the occasion with excellent speeches that canvas the importance of the bilateral relationship and strengthen mutual bonds.

Prime Minister John Key has wanted to invoke that tradition here.

But the only occasion (to date) in which a foreign leader — Australia’s former PM Julia Gillard — has addressed our Parliament it had to be outside formal sitting hours.

This was because Greens co-leader Russel Norman — an Australian himself — reckoned having a foreign leader in the House could undermine the democratic sovereignty of Parliament.

Did having Winston Churchill address the US Congress undermine US sovereignty? It’s a very silly justification by the Greens.

UPDATE: The article (and my comments) overlook the changes made to Standing Orders just before the election, which now provide a mechanism for foreign leaders to address the House. The Greens would have had to agree to the change in standing orders, which suggests they no longer have blanker opposition. However the Business Committee has to agree on the details, which means they can veto individual foreign leaders. My thanks to the Clerk’s Office for pointing out the change in standing orders to me.

During the 2014 election campaign both Labour and the Greens told us how they want a ‘smart green’ economy that takes advantage of new technology to produce higher value products and lower carbon emissions. In addition, they want an economy that discourages speculation in housing, reduces inequality and puts more people in work.

These are admirable goals and not new. However, the irony is that the policies put forward by Labour and the Greens (and most of the other parties to be honest) are not smart or particularly green. Rather, their polices are dumb and dirty.

For the most part, both Labour and the Green’s economic policies rely on the assumption that the private sector is dumber than government officials. They assume the private sector is holding off investing in innovative green ventures or productive research until the government assists by giving a grant or tax incentive.

Their economic policies require a bureaucratic money-go-round. Some taxpayers pay more tax in order that other taxpayers pay less tax or receive grants in return for undertaking the deemed beneficial activities. Or it may be the same taxpayer paying less tax on income from favoured activities and more tax on other income! Such schemes are more likely to create a drag on the economy than boost it. That is unless you believe government officials are masterminds! Sam Morgan recently pointed out that if officials really had a superior record in picking winners, he’d hire them.

If one accepts the need for the government to raise more money, substantially raising the top rate of income tax for a small group of higher income taxpayers is not smart. People don’t like paying more tax, particularly a huge 40% of any extra income they earn as the Greens propose, so find ways to lower their taxable income. Raising the top tax rate inevitably raises less revenue than the relatively small amount mathematically possible.

The tax avoidance encouraged by higher rates of income tax also distorts investment. For example, the huge growth in tax loss generating rental properties in the 2000s was driven in part by taxpayers avoiding the fifth Labour government’s increase in the top rate tax to 39% for any income over $60,000.

However, a capital gains tax would do little to discourage the middle class from continuing to invest in rental properties. A capital gains tax is not payable until way into the future, if ever, in their minds so would cause them little immediate concern. Furthermore, with Labour’s version the CGT rate would only be 15%.

A more effective way to make residential property less attractive and raise revenue would be to impose a tax that immediately hits the pocket and is impossible to avoid. A land tax set at a small percentage of the value of land owned, payable annually or maybe quarterly, would do this. A tax free threshold of around $200,000 could exempt the land occupied by the average family home while discouraging the pouring of more money into low yielding property.

A land tax would be better at reducing inequality and do less to discourage productive activity than a CGT or raising income tax. Other taxes on the stock of capital such as inheritance and gift taxes have similar advantages. Such taxes were used in the past to break up big estates and reduce inequality. Any party serious about reducing inequality needs to consider using them.

On the supply side, if we really want innovative businesses and individuals to bring their ‘smart green’ ideas to New Zealand then we should stop trying to tax them on their worldwide earnings. New Zealand has to be more attractive than alternative destinations, and not trying to sweep all residents’ offshore income into New Zealand would be a good start.

The Greens would have us believe that a large increase in public transport spending at the expense of building new roads would also somehow be good for the economy and the environment. The reality is that it would largely be a waste of money and likely increase pollution.

The Greens are keen on ribbons of steel snaking across the land to support massively heavy and expensive rail carriages. Even so called light rail, which they also like, is still heavier, far more expensive and less flexible than buses. Unless there are constant large volumes of freight or passengers, rail never comes anywhere near paying its way.

Even using buses for public transport is efficient only for busy and peak-time routes. Having off-peak buses run around nearly empty (which is very common) is actually worse for the environment than everyone using cars. A bus puts out at least four times the carbon emissions of a car. Given buses follow a less direct route, it is likely that every bus with less than 8 passengers on board is emitting more carbon than if all those passengers were driving one car each! Electrified buses or trains, and all the infrastructure they require to operate, are substantially more expensive so even less viable. Anyway, a material amount of electricity generated in New Zealand comes from the burning of fossil fuels.

Those people who rely on off-peak public transport could easily be transported more efficiently in shuttle vans or cars. There are apps such as Uber that make taxis easier to use and more efficient. Software to efficiently route transport picking up multiple people going to the same location has already been developed. The conditions are therefore ripe for the development of new, innovative, cost effective off-peak public transport solutions that use small vehicles and technology – solutions that really would decrease carbon emissions.

Share this:

In the final pre-election polls the Greens were polling at between 11% and 14.4%. The average was 12.7%. However they got just 10.0% (on provisionals) and actually lost an MP from 2011. It was a hugely disappointing result for a party that hadn’t had any major screw ups (apart from Russel’s mad idea to print more money), and should have got a big boost from left voters who turned off Labour.

They could pick up their lost seat on specials but their 14th seat has a quotient of 7806, a fair way behind Labour on 8240.

They did well in Wellington and Christchurch, getting 17% and 13% of the vote respectively. However in Auckland they managed only 9%. Their vote fell in all regions from 0.4% to 1.8%. They did improve by 0.5% in the Maori seats.

They got over 20% in five seats – Wellington Central 28%, Rongotai 25%, Dunedin North 22%, Auckland Central 21% and Mt Albert 21%. They only got between 15% and 20% in another three seats – Port Hills, Te Tai Tonga and Christchurch Central. In 42 seats they got below 10%, and below 5% in just five seats (all in Auckland).

Their best provincial seat was Nelson on 13%, and best rural seats WCT on 12%.

So why such a poor result. A few factors I’d speculate on:

Their voters did not vote as the thought of a Labour-led Government was unappealing, but could not bring themselves to vote National so did not vote

Younger supporters did not vote

Their campaign was not as good in 2011. The tagline was confusing and did not resonate. The images did not support their tagline.

Centrist voters who value the environment voted National, as the did not want to risk Dotcom being part of Government

Like Labour they suffered from four of the five weeks of the campaign not being about policy

So what are their challenges going ahead:

Renewal

They only got one new MP in. Last time they got several, so renewal is not an issue this term, but will be next election.

Leadership

Both Norman and Turei are now seasoned politicians, who have avoided the gaffes of their Labour counterparts. Partly that is because of less scrutiny, but still solid performances.

Norman has now been co-leader for eight years, and by 2017 will be 11 years. Turei for five and a half years.

There are two capable successors to Norman – Kevin Hague and in time James Shaw.

It is more difficult on the female side. If they had got Marama Davidson in, she would be a potential future co-leader. Eugenie Sage would probably be the most likely successor, but too early to say.

Perpetual Opposition

How do the Greens break out of opposition? If National gets a fourth term, then that is 21 years in opposition. And because Labour knows they can’t ever not support Labour, Labour might lock them out in future again, if a party like NZ First demands it.

Positioning

The Greens need to find a way to credibly say under some circumstances they could abstain on a National-led Government, so that Labour can’t take them for granted. The challenge is to do it in a way which won’t send their own supporters fleeing.

They could do a Winston and say they will negotiate with the largest party first, but would only agree to abstain or support of they get the right policy commitments on climate change, child poverty etc.

The new Internet Party?

There is a potential opportunity for the Greens to pick up former Internet Party supporters and declare themselves the true Internet Party. Gareth Hughes is widely respected for his work on Internet issues.

Labour

As Labour gets into more turmoil, do they try to supplant it? Is their ambition to be third, second or first?

The Green Party needs a serious rethink. For as long as they have been in Parliament, they have been a left wing party – linked to the fortunes of the Labour Party. The Greens have constantly ruled out voting confidence and supply in a National Government. It means they can only ever be in Government if Labour is in Government. And the truth is – even when the tide was in for the Labour Party – Helen Clark and co shafted them.

Clark chose to officially work with Peter Dunne and Winston Peters to form a Government and she left the Greens out in the cold, knowing their votes came for free. She knew how to keep her enemies close and her friends voted for Labour anyway.

History shows the Greens have missed out on power in New Zealand. If that is to change, the Greens need to evolve and be open to formally supporting a National Government.

I can’t see ever them doing this, but if they did it would guarantee Labour would never take them for granted again. Cunliffe was all set to lock them out of Government (if Labour did better) as the price to get Winston on board.

The Greens talk poverty and social justice, but the poor aren’t listening – and they’re certainly not voting for them. Look at these telling statistics from the poorest electorates in the country:

In Manurewa, in the crucial party vote, just 868 people voted for the Greens; in Manukau, East it was just 744; in Mangere, it was just 865.

Now look at the two most wealthy suburbs in NZ:

In Epsom, the Greens got 3415 votes; in Wellington Central, they got 8627 party votes, more than Labour’s 7351; in Auckland Central the Greens got 4584 votes, compared to Labour’s 4758.

The Greens get votes from wealthy liberals.

The Greens have been in power in Germany and Finland. Of course, they will always oppose National’s intention to mine, and of course they will oppose the numerous free-trade agreements, and of course they will disagree with farming practices and carbon emissions. But Labour supports mining and free-trade too – they aren’t that different to National. And what difference has Labour made to dairy farming in NZ? Zilch. Not forgetting, Labour negotiated and signed the China free-trade deal – not National.

In short, it’s time for the Greens to grow up, modernise and to be a party that can genuinely make a difference. They could be the 10 percent balance-of-power party every election – no matter who leads the Government.

While the focus in the aftermath of the election rout has been on the woes of the Labour Party, the Greens should also be soul-searching and contemplating where to from here.

Despite brave words from co-leader Metiria Turei about the Greens doing well and holding their vote, the results must have been disappointing.

First, there is bewilderment that left-leaning parties were thrashed.

If you add the 4.1% of the Conservatives to National’s 48.1% (the Act and United Future party votes were only just worth counting), the ”right” trounced Labour’s 24.7%, the Greens’ 10% and Internet Mana’s 1.3%.

Yep, 53% to around 36%. To get a left Government not reliant on the whims of Winston needs around an 11% gain.

Both the Greens and Labour, often competing for the same voters, would have been expecting losses from one to flow to the other.

But they didn’t. Well Labour did lose some to the Greens, but the Greens lost some to non voters.

Although the Greens are ”red-green”, with most policies well left of centre, they continue to fail in the poorest electorates.

In South Auckland’s Mangere, Manukau East and Manurewa they could not even muster 900 votes per electorate.

Go to highly educated Wellington Central, and they won 8627.

Next highest was Rongotai (Wellington) with 8230 and then Dunedin North 6718 and Mt Albert (Auckland) 6205.

The dominant appeal is to the liberal middle class with, one suspects, a large number of socially and environmentally concerned middle-aged among those who ticked Green.

The council’s Transport and Urban Development Committee today vested four pieces of land in Tawa to the Crown for the purpose of building the $850 million motorway north of Wellington.

Doing so was little more than a formality, given the New Zealand Transport Agency’s ability to acquire the land if the council did not willingly hand it over.

But acting committee chairman and deputy mayor of Wellington Justin Lester said, somewhat jokingly, it was the council’s last chance to stop Transmission Gully, which was first mooted in 1919.

”In my personal capacity, I wholeheartedly support it,” he said.

”We [councillors] do look forward to the project getting underway.”

But not everyone on the committee shared that view.

Councillor Iona Pannett said that even though the land transfer was a formality, she would not support it.

”I’m voting against this as a matter of principle because I’ll never never support mega road building,” she said.

”If there’s anything I can do to frustrate that, I will.”

Iona’s views are the views of most elected Greens. They are against roads, no matter what. They will never never support them. It is not about cost effectiveness, road safety or congestion. It is a near religious belief that cars are bad.
.

A 42-minute audio recording by an ISIS spokesman was released on social media Sunday, in which the group calls on Muslims to kill civilians in countries that belong to the anti-ISIS, U.S.-led coalition.

“If you can kill a disbelieving American or European, especially the spiteful and filthy French, or an Australian, or a Canadian or any other disbeliever, then rely upon Allah, and kill him in any manner or way however it may be,” an ISIS spokesman says.

What should New Zealand do? Does this country have malcontents who would embrace even ascetic religious fundamentalism for the sake of a cause? Have any been with Isis and returned? Should this country, too, offer special forces to assist Iraqi troops on the ground? That depends on whether the new Iraqi Government is better than the last, and whether US air support alone might be effective, as it was in protecting Kurdistan. The decision must not be influenced by the possibility of terrorism at home. As Australia has shown, good intelligence can keep us safe.

This is worth reflecting on.

That doesn’t mean that the GCSB should be allowed to do what it wants. Absolutely not. I am against mass surveillance of New Zealanders (which does not occur in NZ). But be aware the Greens are not just against mass surveillance – their official policy is to abolish the GCSB entirely – and look at abolishing the SIS also. They take an unbalanced view on these issues, and that view has dangers as our closest neighbour comes under attack.

Got sent this e-mail by a reader. I have not fact checked it myself, but it seems to be accurate, and is a useful counter to the hysteria over water quality.

Are the Greens telling you the Truth?

1. A recent OECD survey measured the cleanliness of all major rivers that flow through farmland in OECD countries. Of the three New Zealand rivers measured, where did the Clutha, Waitaki and Waikato, respectively, place?

a) 87th, 89th and 90th

b) 42nd, 58th and 76th

c) 1st, 2nd and 4th

Answer: Of all major rivers in the developed world that flow through farmland, the OECD found Clutha rated 1st, the Waitaki 2nd and the Waikato 4th for cleanliness.

2. Compared with other developed countries’ major rivers, the OECD study found New Zealand’s three longest rivers contained what levels of nitrates and total phosphorous, respectively?

a) very high and relatively high

b) relatively high and high

c) very low and relatively low

Answer: Our three longest rivers were found to have very low levels of nitrates, and relatively low levels of total phosphorus.

3. The latest Commission for the Environment report said what percentage of New Zealand rivers are getting cleaner?

a) 20%

b) 50%

c) 90%

Answer: 90% of our rivers are getting cleaner. There are river care and land care groups on all main and many small rivers across New Zealand. They’re spending millions of dollars to improve water quality. They include farmers, Fonterra, Dairy NZ, NZ Beef and Lamb, Landcare NZ, Federated Farmers, Iwi, fertilizer companies, universities, and regional councils.

4. How did the Greens interpret the Commissioner for the Environment’s report?

a) They told the truth and congratulated farmers on the 90%.

b) The lied and said only 50% of rivers were getting cleaner.

c) They lied and said water quality was getting worse.

Answer: Russel Norman lied and said water quality was getting worse, when the Commissioner for the Environment said 90% of rivers were getting cleaner overall.5. How many of New Zealand’s 1000 rivers did the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment classify very poor for cleanliness?

a) 326

b) 17

c) 2

Answer: Only 17 of our 1000 rivers are still rated very poor for cleanliness. But the Commissioner for the Environment reports that each one is getting cleaner.

6. Compared with the OECD average of 11%, what percentage of available fresh water does New Zealand use?

a) 43%

b) 11.2%

c) 1.2%

Answer: We use only 1.2% of our available fresh water. That’s nearly the lowest in the OECD. South Korea uses 43%. (North Korea’s not saying.)

7. How many kilometres of rivers and streams have farmers so far fenced off?

a) 20,000 km

b) 30,000 km

c) 45,000 km

Answer: Farmers have so far fenced off 45,000 km of rivers and streams (note: the 20,000 km being quoted by National is Fonterra farmers only), as well as doing a great deal of planting alongside waterways.

8. What percentage of New Zealand dairy-farm rivers have farmers so far fenced off?

a) 30%

b) 60%

c) 90%

Answer: Farmers have so far fenced off 90% of New Zealand rivers that run through farmland.

9. What has made farmers fence off so many rivers at their own expense?

a) Government regulation

b) Local and regional council regulation

c) Their concern as practical environmentalists

Answer: As dairy farm income has risen, farmers have been able to afford to help clean up our rivers, and are doing more fencing and planting all the time.

10. How do the Greens plan to reward farmers for their voluntary efforts?

a) Tax them less

b) Tax them the same

c) Tax them more

Answer: The Green want to tax farmers more, making it harder for them to continue their fencing and planting.

11. How much are farming-related groups spending per year to solve the leaching problem?

a) $2.5 million

b) $12.5 million

c) $25 million

Answer: Over $25 million per year is going into research to solve the leaching problem. The effort is constrained only by the number of available scientists.

12. Where are New Zealand’s worst affected stretches of rivers:

a) downstream from farms

b) downstream from towns

c) downstream from Green Party offices.

Answer: Our worst-affected stretches of river are downstream from urban, not rural, areas.

13. What is the Greens’ solution to improving river water quality?

a) Recognise that farmers are practical environmentalists, and encourage them to finish their fencing and planting.

b) Provide state assistance to help speed up the process

c) Ban all new dairy farm conversions

Answer: The Greens have said they want to cap dairy farming at its current level.

14. What will be the result of the Greens stopping new dairy farming?

a) More export income

b) Better schools, better hospitals – and a cleaner environment

c) The loss of precious new export income that would allow us to afford better hospitals, better schools, and a cleaner environment

Answer: The loss of precious new export income that would allow us to afford better hospitals, better schools – and a cleaner environment.

15. With their very public “dirty dairying” campaign, the Greens have:-

a) helpfully improved New Zealand’s international reputation

b) made no difference to New Zealand’s international reputation

c) deliberately sabotaged New Zealand’s international reputation

Answer: By loudly exaggerating problems with our clean, green image, the Greens have deliberately sabotaged New Zealand’s international reputation.

.
THE GREENS DON’T CARE ABOUT SABOTAGING NEW ZEALAND.

To say that farmers pull their weight for New Zealand is a massive understatement. Together these 60,000 hardworking and innovative men and women earn 52% of our export income.

And frankly, they’re hurting at the torrent of unjustified criticism from the Greens that they don’t care about our rivers.

They want you to know the facts.

There are river care and land care groups on all main and many small rivers across New Zealand. They’re spending millions of dollars to improve water quality.

The Greens’ unfair “dirty dairying” campaign has done much to sabotage New Zealand’s international reputation. You have to wonder whether these people are New Zealanders first, or more committed to the Socialist International goal of bringing down capitalism.

The fact is, thousands of New Zealand farmers are heavily committed financially and ethically to making our rivers cleaner. (A commitment which started long before the “dirty dairying” campaign.)

THE DOWNSIDE OF A HUGE UPSIDE

So why do we have this problem with our rivers? It goes back to the early days of our farming and industry. The upside of those pioneering efforts was that farmers gave New Zealanders the highest standard of living in the world.The downside was that, with no practical alternatives, they had to use the rivers as a means of disposal. Everyone accepted that. There was little or no dissent.

Then in the 1960s, attitudes changed. And work began on cleaning up.

We’re happy to acknowledge that the Green movement was a part of that attitude shift. We respect the Greens as environmental watchdogs. But their solution to every problem is more state control. Their latest list of policies reveals them to be more concerned with socialist redistribution than about the environment.

FARMERS MADE US A RICH COUNTRY, NOT THE STATE.

We remind you who built the farming industry on which New Zealanders still depend for their high standard of living. It wasn’t the state. That’s why we say innovative, commonsense farmers have a better record of fixing environmental problems related to farming than heavy-handed bureaucrats from Wellington.

These are just a very few of the many waterways that have community groups working hard to clean them up:

Ngongotaha Stream, Bay of Plenty. This stream is benefitting from restoration work that began decades ago. A whole-of-catchment plan led to 90% of the river’s banks being fenced and replanted. Result: much less sediment entering the stream, less particulate nitrogen and phosphorous – and less E coli.

Watercress Creek, Tasman. A Fonterra-financed farm river plan is reaping big benefits. The creek is now fully fenced and the Fonterra factory’s waste no longer overflows into it. Council, schools, communities and farmers are all beavering away replanting.

Rai River, Marlborough. At one time, during the dairy season there were three million cow crossings a day in this catchment. After 20 years of huge expenditure on bridges and culverts, the number of cows in the water at any one time is close to zero. Result: E coli levels are way down.

Shag River, Otago. Various farmer organizations and the regional council shared with farmers information about best practice. Farmers then invested heavily in reticulated water, fencing and new practices. Result: an impressive drop in E coli levels.

Please don’t misunderstand us. We applaud the Greens for alerting us to problems. We just have a big problem with their heavy-handed state solutions.

MORE FACTS ABOUT HOW WE’RE IMPROVING OUR WATER QUALITY

There are three sources of pollution in waterways: pathogens (faeces), sediment (erosion) and nutrients (mainly phosphates and nitrogen).

Every year the pathogens and sediment problems have got better. And we’re now seeing a reduction in phosphates thanks to the efforts of farmers, the government, regional councils and other groups.

Only nitrogen now needs to be beaten and we’re on track to knock it out too as millions are poured into research and development.

Something you should know when you hear the word nitrogen. Nitrogen occurs naturally in waterways – if it didn’t we’d have a much bigger problem. Life in the water would die.

NIWA’s Dr Davies-Colley had this to say about our improving water quality:

“The fact that some heavily polluted rivers – mostly in dairying areas – have turned the corner in recent years gives us cause for optimism for the future.”

“A relatively few urban- and mine-affected rivers in New Zealand probably have the worst water quality because of mobilisation of toxic contaminants such as heavy metals as well as severe habitat modification.”

TOSTOP THE GREENS,YOU MUSTSTOP LABOUR.

If you party vote Labour and the Left wins, in a couple of weeks 30% of the Cunliffe cabinet will be Green. Russel Norman and Metiria Turei will be Joint Deputy Prime Ministers. Ex-communist Norman is going to be driving a hard bargain to get his hands on the Finance portfolio. We’ll have up to seven Green ministers.

Is that what you want?

If not, there’s only one thing you can do about it. Don’t vote Labour because Labour means 30% Greens.

Authorised by: John Third for The Opinion, 61 Ironside Road, Johnsonville.

I don’t agree with all the rhetoric in the e-mail, but I do absolutely agree with the salient points about how the Greens are misleading over the issue, and that their policy to cap the number of cows in New Zealand is the wrong one.

Internet Party leader Laila Harre has criticised the Greens for talking about the possibility of a co-operation deal with a National Government just eight days from the election – a proposal that National has slapped down and exploited.

She said it was crucial that progressive parties focused on mobilising turnout to change the government and the amount of early voting so far signalled the potential for a significant increase.

“I think the Greens’ statement is unfortunate. It risks demoralising those who are confident and hold hope that the progressive parties are focused on a change of government,” Ms Harre said.

In the event that National managed to put together a government after September 20, it would be one that was extremely vulnerable, with John Key’s leadership an issue in the aftermath of the Dirty Politics revelations.

“All of that makes it even more important that the progressive parties that want to change the Government are entirely focused on that outcome.

“It is not the time for any of those parties to be forming relationships of any nature with the National Party.”

Laila is unhappy with her comrades. Bad Greens.

However, Prime Minister John Key had ruled it out by the afternoon and exploited the appearance of a rift between the Greens and Labour for all it was worth.

“They’ve given up hope on Labour,” he told reporters in Northland.

“The Greens have made their own way with Labour.

“The fact that the ship is taking on so much water is really a problem for the two of them to think about.”

The big problem for Labour leader David Cunliffe was that the only partner he had basically got “is saying ‘man overboard’,” the PM said

If they don’t make it this time, the Greens face 18 years of not being in Government. Also they will then have Internet Mana in Parliament with greater resources and directly competing for votes with them..

Labour leader David Cunliffe’s Capital Gains Tax is again under fire – this time from economists at the NZIER who say it won’t generate anywhere near enough money to cover the party’s spending promises.

Labour has over-estimated its capital gains tax numbers, according to a report by the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research. The report was commissioned by Federated Farmers, which strongly opposes the proposal.

Labour predicts a capital gains tax should raise $3.7 billion by 2026. But the Institute claims it’ll actually bring in less than half of that.

So who do we believe? The NZIEr is probably the (or one of the) most respected economics firms in New Zealand.

Labour on the other hand is the first opposition party in around two decades to decline the offer by Treasury to have a secondee in their office, who could credibly cost their policies for them.

It’s not a hard call.

And in related news, the Taxpayers Union has released a paper by Dr Michael Dunn analysing the likely fiscal impact of the Green Party wages policy. Dr Dunn is the former head of forecasting at IRD, so is an expert in forecasting.

The Greens claimed their wages policy will bring in an extra $800 million a year in tax revenue to the Government. Dr Dunn has calculated that in fact it would result in around $110 million less tax revenue every year, So that is a $2.7 billion hold in the Greens costings. We have a surplus projection of $300 million, so goodbye surplus.

The Greens and Dr Dunn agree that the direct cost of their policy on the Government will be $1.1 bllion over three years. Add on the reduced tax revenue and the total impact on the Government’s books is to leave the Government’s books $1.4 billion worse off – compared to their claim that it would be $1.5 billion better off.

These are not minor differences. These are billions of dollars. And just on one policy!!

I think it is time that we have what the US have, and a NZ version of the Congressional Budget Office which can independently cost policies proposed by parliamentary parties. NZers deserve better than to be conned by political parties that grossly mislead voters over the true costs of their policies.